Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On 2020-06-29 23:55:49 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > nodepool from OpenStack, Well, *formerly* from OpenStack, these days Nodepool is a component of the Zuul project gating system, which is developed by an independent project/community (still represented by the OSF): https://zuul-ci.org/ https://opendev.org/zuul/nodepool/ You could probably run a Nodepool launcher daemon stand-alone (without a Zuul scheduler), but it's going to expect to be able to service node requests queued in a running Apache Zookeeper instance and usually the easiest way to generate those is with Zuul's scheduler. You might be better off just trying to run Nodepool along with Zuul, maybe even set up a GitLab connection to Salsa: https://zuul-ci.org/docs/zuul/reference/drivers/gitlab.html > and use instances donated by generous cloud providers (that's not > hard to find, really, I'm convinced that all the providers that > are donating to the OpenStack are likely to also donate compute > time to Debian). [...] They probably would, I've approached some of them in the past when it sounded like the Salsa admins were willing to entertain other backend storage options than GCS for GitLab CI/CD artifacts. One of those resource donors (VEXXHOST) also has a Managed Zuul offering of their own, which they might be willing to hook you up with instead if you decide packaging all of Zuul is daunting (it looks like both you and hashar from WMF started work on that at various times in https://bugs.debian.org/705844 but more recently there are some JavaScript deps for its Web dashboard which could get gnarly to unwind in a Debian context). -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On 6/29/20 7:35 PM, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >> Running the script shows that 279 reverse (build?) dependencies are >> affected by mock. This clearly isn't something one wants to run on a >> personal computer, and even less a test which one wants to run sequentially. > > Haha, right. > What we (me and a couple others) do is run this build script on a > server (via screen) and call it a night :P > And we get the list of broken packages in the morning! > > But of course, this is not a very "professional" way of doing it. What we could do, is use nodepool from OpenStack, and use instances donated by generous cloud providers (that's not hard to find, really, I'm convinced that all the providers that are donating to the OpenStack are likely to also donate compute time to Debian). And then we could launch 150 builds at a time on 150 VMs. Then the time to wait is only the time of the longest build. >> Has any thought went into having some kind of runners running on a cloud >> to run these tests, and maybe plug this into Salsa's CI to run it >> automatically? > > This seems to be a nice idea! > I am not sure if someone had the time or energy to do this, but this > is something we'd definitely love \o/ To get this to happen, we have no other way but using the power of some kind of cloud / HTC. >> I'd very much would love to set this up, at least as a first >> experimentation on a bunch of package of the DPMT. > > Me too! I shall resume packaging nodepool then... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
Hello, On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:24 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > Nice! Thanks a lot for the pointer. \o/ > I very much agree with you that the debate has to be emptied from > emotions if possible. My goal has never been to point finger at anyone, > but try to fix a reoccurring situation which I would like to avoid. Definitely! Everyone would love to avoid that! > Running the script shows that 279 reverse (build?) dependencies are > affected by mock. This clearly isn't something one wants to run on a > personal computer, and even less a test which one wants to run sequentially. Haha, right. What we (me and a couple others) do is run this build script on a server (via screen) and call it a night :P And we get the list of broken packages in the morning! But of course, this is not a very "professional" way of doing it. > Has any thought went into having some kind of runners running on a cloud > to run these tests, and maybe plug this into Salsa's CI to run it > automatically? This seems to be a nice idea! I am not sure if someone had the time or energy to do this, but this is something we'd definitely love \o/ > I'd very much would love to set this up, at least as a first > experimentation on a bunch of package of the DPMT. Me too! Best, Utkarsh
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
> Running the script shows that 279 reverse (build?) dependencies are > affected by mock. This clearly isn't something one wants to run on a > personal computer, and even less a test which one wants to run sequentially. > > Has any thought went into having some kind of runners running on a cloud > to run these tests, and maybe plug this into Salsa's CI to run it > automatically? > > I'd very much would love to set this up, at least as a first > experimentation on a bunch of package of the DPMT. i sent this some time ago do d-devel https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/03/msg00342.html it didnt get much traction -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
Re: Request for joining DPMT
Hi, so 13. 6. 2020 v 12:18 odesílatel Nilesh Patra napsal: > Hi, > I'm interested in joining DPMT > welcome :) -- Best regards Ondřej Nový
Re: Request to join DPMT
Hi, st 24. 6. 2020 v 11:27 odesílatel Michael Hanke napsal: > Hi, > > I would like to join DPMT, welcome :) -- Best regards Ondřej Nový
Re: Request to join
Hi, so 27. 6. 2020 v 15:30 odesílatel Jerome Charaoui napsal: > Hello, > > I would like to request to join the Python Applications team. > welcome :) -- Best regards Ondřej Nový
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On 6/29/20 2:33 PM, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > There exists such a thing which I use daily: ruby-team/meta[1]. > The meta/build script is (hopefully and exactly) what we need here! > > It checks all the reverse(-build)-dependencies and lets you know what's > going to break as soon as you dput. Hi Utkarsh, Nice! Thanks a lot for the pointer. I very much agree with you that the debate has to be emptied from emotions if possible. My goal has never been to point finger at anyone, but try to fix a reoccurring situation which I would like to avoid. Running the script shows that 279 reverse (build?) dependencies are affected by mock. This clearly isn't something one wants to run on a personal computer, and even less a test which one wants to run sequentially. Has any thought went into having some kind of runners running on a cloud to run these tests, and maybe plug this into Salsa's CI to run it automatically? I'd very much would love to set this up, at least as a first experimentation on a bunch of package of the DPMT. Your thoughts? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On Monday, June 29, 2020 7:53:46 AM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 6/29/20 12:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On June 29, 2020 10:12:49 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> On 6/29/20 8:34 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > >>> nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is > >>> recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade > >>> debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my > >> > >> packages > >> > >>> to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade > >>> debhelper in my packages again without asking. > >> > >> I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected. > > > > I'm substantially less enthusiastic about bumping compat levels than > > Ondrej, but since debhelper 13 is available in buster-backports,> > > backporting is unrelated to whether it's a good idea or not. > I'm not maintaining OpenStack through the official backports channel, > because OpenStack users need to have access to all versions of OpenStack > backported to the current Stable. These backports are available through > a debian.net channel (available using extrepo). > > Therefore, the debhelper backport is not available in my build > environment unless I explicitly do some work to make this happen (and > Ondrej is aware of that). Just bumping the debhelper version (and > without a good reason to do so) just add some unnecessary work > maintaining the debhelper backport for me. By all means, let's bump to > version 12. But why version 13 if you don't need the added features? > This makes no sense to me. Since you are maintaining an external backports repository, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect packages that would work with Debian Backports to be supported. One debhelper upload per compat level doesn't seem like enough work to be worth all this complaining. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On Monday, June 29, 2020 10:17:57 AM EDT Scott Talbert wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> More over, mock debhelper was upgraded to 13, for no apparent > >> > >> reason > >> > >>> (yet another "cosmetic fix" that isn't helping?). I'd like to > >> > >> remind > >> > >>> everyone that, increasing debhelper compat version to a number > >> > >> that > >> > >>> isn't in stable, without a specific reason (like the need of a > >> > >> specific > >> > >>> feature that wasn't there before) is just annoying for anyone > >>> maintaining backports. That's truth even for when debhelper > >> > >> itself is > >> > >>> backported to oldstable (it's always nicer to be able to build a > >>> backport without requiring another backport at build time). > >>> > >>> nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is > >>> recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade > >>> debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my > >> > >> packages > >> > >>> to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade > >>> debhelper in my packages again without asking. > >> > >> I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected. > > > > I'm substantially less enthusiastic about bumping compat levels than > > Ondrej, but since debhelper 13 is available in buster-backports, > > backporting is unrelated to whether it's a good idea or not. > > Can you elaborate on other reasons not the upgrade the compat levels? > > Scott This is a matter of personal preference, but since the behavior of debhelper changes between compat versions, I prefer no to change it unless I have time to thoroughly QA changes in the package. This generally means I don't change it often. Unless there are issues with a specific compat level (hello compat 11) or the compat level has been deprecated, I tend to not to do it, but I'm generally pretty minimalist in my package updates. That doesn't mean someone else is wrong to do so if they've checked that package is correct after the change. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote: More over, mock debhelper was upgraded to 13, for no apparent reason (yet another "cosmetic fix" that isn't helping?). I'd like to remind everyone that, increasing debhelper compat version to a number that isn't in stable, without a specific reason (like the need of a specific feature that wasn't there before) is just annoying for anyone maintaining backports. That's truth even for when debhelper itself is backported to oldstable (it's always nicer to be able to build a backport without requiring another backport at build time). nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my packages to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade debhelper in my packages again without asking. I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected. I'm substantially less enthusiastic about bumping compat levels than Ondrej, but since debhelper 13 is available in buster-backports, backporting is unrelated to whether it's a good idea or not. Can you elaborate on other reasons not the upgrade the compat levels? Scott
Re: Request to join DPMT
Hi On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:41 AM Michael Hanke wrote: > Hi again, > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:27 AM Michael Hanke wrote: > > I would like to join DPMT, specifically to provide a Debian package for > > annexremote (https://bugs.debian.org/963593). > > The package is ready. Would it be acceptable, if I upload it to NEW with > > ``` > Maintainer: Debian Python Modules Team > > Uploaders: Michael Hanke > ``` > > even though my request to join the team has not been approved yet? > You must wait until an administrator on the DPMT could read your request Be patient :) > > For interested parties: the package is hosted on Github for the > moment: https://github.com/mih/debian-annexremote > > Cheers, > > Michael > >
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 11:29 PM Sandro Tosi wrote: > OS is *just* another software we package for > Debian; is it complex? sure, but it's not special, and it doesnt > warrant any special treatment. I am afraid when you say this. First of all, that's not completely true. But I don't want to go there. What I want to emphasis more on is: It's okay if you don't want to treat packages in a "special" way, that's totally fine! But what's **not** fine is breaking something else whilst updating something else. That is just NOT...okay. Sometimes it just happens (accidentally or whatever) but I think even then, the person who does that should at least look up at the packages broken, try to fix it, and if it lies something outside their scope (because of time constraints, etc), the least they can do is report this to the respective maintainer(s) or at least raise to the list so that people who can, will help! If everyone uploaded what they felt like without taking care of what's breaking, the whole of Debian would just be chaos. And I think, that's not the way it should be. At all. And I completely agree with Thomas' statement when he says, "No, this is not how Debian works, it never was, and hopefully, never will." I love Ondrej and I love Thomas. And this mail has nothing to do with them. Instead, this is a mail to everyone. And while at it, I'd also request everyone to be a little empathetic. I really hope that's not much to ask, is it!? > It'd be nice if we had a framework to be able to rebuild all reverse > build-dependency when we update a package. But currently, we don't have > such CI. If one volunteers to write it, probably we can find some > compute resources to make it happen. That's probably the way out, and > IMO we should really all think about it. There exists such a thing which I use daily: ruby-team/meta[1]. The meta/build script is (hopefully and exactly) what we need here! It checks all the reverse(-build)-dependencies and lets you know what's going to break as soon as you dput. Best, Utkarsh --- [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/meta
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On 6/29/20 12:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On June 29, 2020 10:12:49 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 6/29/20 8:34 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: >>> nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is >>> recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade >>> debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my >> packages >>> to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade >>> debhelper in my packages again without asking. >> >> I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected. > > I'm substantially less enthusiastic about bumping compat levels than > Ondrej, but since debhelper 13 is available in buster-backports,> backporting > is unrelated to whether it's a good idea or not. I'm not maintaining OpenStack through the official backports channel, because OpenStack users need to have access to all versions of OpenStack backported to the current Stable. These backports are available through a debian.net channel (available using extrepo). Therefore, the debhelper backport is not available in my build environment unless I explicitly do some work to make this happen (and Ondrej is aware of that). Just bumping the debhelper version (and without a good reason to do so) just add some unnecessary work maintaining the debhelper backport for me. By all means, let's bump to version 12. But why version 13 if you don't need the added features? This makes no sense to me. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Request to join DPMT
Hi again, On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:27 AM Michael Hanke wrote: > I would like to join DPMT, specifically to provide a Debian package for > annexremote (https://bugs.debian.org/963593). The package is ready. Would it be acceptable, if I upload it to NEW with ``` Maintainer: Debian Python Modules Team Uploaders: Michael Hanke ``` even though my request to join the team has not been approved yet? For interested parties: the package is hosted on Github for the moment: https://github.com/mih/debian-annexremote Cheers, Michael
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On June 29, 2020 10:12:49 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 6/29/20 8:34 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: ... >> More over, mock debhelper was upgraded to 13, for no apparent >reason >> (yet another "cosmetic fix" that isn't helping?). I'd like to >remind >> everyone that, increasing debhelper compat version to a number >that >> isn't in stable, without a specific reason (like the need of a >specific >> feature that wasn't there before) is just annoying for anyone >> maintaining backports. That's truth even for when debhelper >itself is >> backported to oldstable (it's always nicer to be able to build a >> backport without requiring another backport at build time). >> >> nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is >> recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade >> debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my >packages >> to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade >> debhelper in my packages again without asking. > >I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected. I'm substantially less enthusiastic about bumping compat levels than Ondrej, but since debhelper 13 is available in buster-backports, backporting is unrelated to whether it's a good idea or not. Scott K
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
On 6/29/20 8:34 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Ondrej, you once cared for the OpenStack packages. Why are you now > completely careless? > > > because it's really hard to cooperate with you. I already tried to > explain it to you but you didn't listen. You're mixing 2 things: working on OpenStack package, and caring not to break them. I'm just asking for the later. On 6/29/20 8:34 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > yep, that's how it works. We need to move forward and don't keep old, > buggy and unmaintained packages in Debian, right? If I'm getting this right, not only you break things (which is ok, if it isn't on purpose), but now claim that this is the right thing to do. No, this is not how Debian works, it never was, and hopefully, never will. > More over, mock debhelper was upgraded to 13, for no apparent reason > (yet another "cosmetic fix" that isn't helping?). I'd like to remind > everyone that, increasing debhelper compat version to a number that > isn't in stable, without a specific reason (like the need of a specific > feature that wasn't there before) is just annoying for anyone > maintaining backports. That's truth even for when debhelper itself is > backported to oldstable (it's always nicer to be able to build a > backport without requiring another backport at build time). > > nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is > recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade > debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my packages > to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade > debhelper in my packages again without asking. I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
Hi, ne 28. 6. 2020 v 16:48 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal: > Hi, > > Under a single Github account, the below packages are maintained: > - mock > - subunit > - testtools > - fixtures > - funcsigs (deprecated, py2 backport) > - testresources > - traceback2 > - testscenarios > - testrepository > - extras > - linecache2 > > Currently, these packages are maintained by a variety of DDs, and > there's no uniform maintenance of them. > which is perfectly fine, that's how Debian works. The last upload of mock 4.0.2, by Ondrej, broke *a least*: > - nova (see: #963339) > - cloudkitty (see: #963069) > - congress (see: #963312) > - rally (see: #963381) > > All of the 4 packages above were able to build in Bullseye (ie: mock > 3.0.5) and FTBFS in Sid (with mock 4.0.2). > > Well done! :( > yep, that's how it works. We need to move forward and don't keep old, buggy and unmaintained packages in Debian, right? You should add autopkgtest to prevent this. Failed autopkgtest will block migration. Or we should start using full transitions, which is a bad idea imho. Ondrej, you once cared for the OpenStack packages. Why are you now > completely careless? > because it's really hard to cooperate with you. I already tried to explain it to you but you didn't listen. > More over, mock debhelper was upgraded to 13, for no apparent reason > (yet another "cosmetic fix" that isn't helping?). I'd like to remind > everyone that, increasing debhelper compat version to a number that > isn't in stable, without a specific reason (like the need of a specific > feature that wasn't there before) is just annoying for anyone > maintaining backports. That's truth even for when debhelper itself is > backported to oldstable (it's always nicer to be able to build a > backport without requiring another backport at build time). > nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my packages to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade debhelper in my packages again without asking. I don't want this to happen again. So I am hereby asking to take over > the maintenance of these packages which aren't in the OpenStack team. > They will be updated regularly, each 6 months, with the rest of > OpenStack, following the upstream global-requirement pace. I'm confident > it's going to work well for me and the OpenStack team, but as well for > the rest of Debian. > for my packages (i'm uploader): no, sorry. Reasons: 1. I hate openstack-pkg-tools 2. I like pybuild 3. you hate pybuild and don't want to use it -- Best regards Ondřej Nový
